stonewall1012

I am interested in the assertion that a negation is considered the "default" assumption with out necessity of proof. I see lots of people running their mouths here citing this and citing that. However, if reasoning is flawed it doesn't matter how much information a person can vomit up on an internet page.

A negative assertion is not a "default" assertion and considered true until proven false. That is a poor mans method of winning a debate. All assertions negative or positive are assertions and must be demonstrated as true.
For example: I claim: "Men have walked on the moon." If you can show that I have not proven the veracity of this claim does it by "default" prove that "NO men have walked on the moon?" or does it prove "Not all men have walked on the moon?" which is the "default" position?
Clear reasoning is a KEY component to making a persuasive argument.
If you don't know that disproving an assertion does not prove its negation a key component of REASON is missing.

spamandham

...thanks for putting all that together. I didn't know the dating of P52 was seriously contested, even though I have seen hand wringing in regards to paleography in general.

It seems to me, that if there is evidence a writer has based his writing on earlier texts, the error bars associated with paleography might be very large. On the other hand, it could still be usefull to date portions of the text to the extent the later writer was sloppy enough to allow us to tell old from new.

If a writer has maintained an earlier writing style, it seems that still tells us the time period of the original writings - although we wouldn't know the content of those earlier writings.

patcleaver

I would think that was common to slavishly copy something as precisely as possible including handwriting style. It would also probably be common to copy something into the current handwriting style of the times.

I would think it was unusual to intentionally copy something into an older style that was more ancient then the original handwriting style. It would not necessarily be dishonest - possibly just an artistic choice like someone might prefer New Times Roman font over Courier font.

However, if a papyrus document is recopied on average every 10 years, and a paper document is recopied on average every 20 years, then after hundreds of years, the laws of probability are going to kick in, and the handwriting style is not going to be a very reliable indicator of the original handwriting style or the age of the original document.

patcleaver

I do not have any significant information that I have not already shared. Most of it is from several different internet sites but its the best I could piece together. If you want to spend more time researching this then you would have my gratitude even if you proved some of it wrong.

I think that I have the information on P52 correct. If you want to check it out you should start with the article by Brent Nongbri and contact the John Rylands Library about their research and confidence in the dates of P52.

Regarding Codex Khaburis, I am confident of the dates of the carbon dating and the forensic analysis of the vellum.

Be careful there is confusion between the Yonan Codex and the Khaburis Codex. They are different documents no matter what some internet sites say. Yonan's family owned the Yonan Codex for generations, but Yonan sold it. Also, Yonan acquired the Khaburis Codex in 1965, and then he sold it to an organization that he controlled until recently.

I have a lot less confidence in the dates that I provided for the 1966 handwriting analysis and the 1995 handwriting analysis mostely because of the confusion in my own notes between Codex Yonan and Codex Khaburis. I think the dating was for purposes of establishing a sales prices so the reputation of the scholar who did the analysis would have been a consideration in the sales negotiations. I do not have the primary source documents for the handwriting analysis dates or know if there is any peer reviewed publication. I do not have any reason to think that whoever did the handwriting analysis were not respected scholars in the field or that their dates were any more biased then expected in this field.

You should read:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hugoye-list/message/1610

This Codex Khaburis contains 22 books of the New Testament, so the chain of copying and translation would have to go back to the originals - just like any New Testament.

Good luck with the research.

If your interested in handwriting analysis or the Yonan Codex you should also read:
The Saga Of The Yonan Codex by Bruce M. Metzger
http://www.sbl-site.org/assets/pdfs/Yonan.pdf

aa5874

So, how could anyone prove Achilles was a myth? Yet, Achilles is considered a myth universally.

There is no proof for an entity that does not exist if that entity has never been confirmed to have actually existed.

All that is needed is to examine the information about any figure and make an assesment of the probability that the entity did exist.

Achilles and Jesus are presented as sons of implausible or unknown beings called gods. Both can be considered mythical until credible information is found.

Anyone who claims an entity exists and that entity has never been confirmed to have existed,before, then the persom who makes the claim ,that the entity existed, MUST provide credible evidence or information to support the claim.

spamandham

Augustus is recorded as being the son of the implausible or unknown being called Apollo. (Seutonius, The Lives of the Caesers: The deified Augustus).

While I agree that the writings in regard to Jesus are closer to the writings about Achilles than Augustus, it seems that in an age where the line between fantasy and reality was thin, the mere fact that someone is written about in hyperbolic and mythical terms is not enough to claim they never existed.

Amaleq13

You. My mistake?

The evidence describes what believers were called and what believers actually believed. There is nothing stating that any deity had more than one name.

It is entirely consistent with the notion that the Egyptians were "wholly light-minded, unstable, and blown about by every breath of rumor" with regard to the their religious behavior. What doesn't make sense about that?

Only if you also assume that Hadrian could not have differentiated between the two. And that assumption is apparently based on accepting Stark's estimates of the growth of Christianity.

It seems consistent with the notion that the Egyptians were "wholly light-minded, unstable, and blown about by every breath of rumor". They call themselves one thing while believing another or they claim to belong to multiple religions.

Given the available context (ie Egyptian religious behavior), your objection makes no sense to me. Someone who is "wholly light-minded, unstable, and blown about by every breath of rumor" with regard to religion most certainly lacks a solid grounding in any one faith. One with a solid ground in a single faith would not exhibit the described behavior.

No, what you describe is very different. The phrase gives no indication he is describing internal, sectarian squabbling.

I had no opinion on (or knowledge of) this until the original thread. After reading the actual text, it seemed clear to me that the "interpretation" you offer does not come naturally from the text. I agree that the apparently easy differentiation and knowledge of Christians seems anachronistic based on estimates like Stark's but I find a plain reading of the text to be entirely comprehensible.